Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

We have come to the most substantive part of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Certainly, it is by far the most contentious. With due respect to my colleague from the Greens, I say that from a Labour perspective it is by far the most contentious and the part we have undertaken to oppose. Our support for the bill depends on my amendment being agreed. Part 4 outlines procedures available in circumstances of urgency. The nub of what it does, and I will get to the detail of it, is that it grants the Minister appointed by the Prime Minister—in this case, almost certainly Mr McCully—the ability to override a large number of pieces of legislation of his own accord. That is something that he or she would be able to do—

💬 Charles Chauvel: Sovereignty at last.

Well, I think describing Mr McCully as a sovereign is probably not an appropriate way of putting it.

It is impossible to overstate the anger on this side of the House at this unconstitutional arrangement. We were pushed very hard over the Canterbury legislation, and I think there is debate now as to whether we were more flexible than we should have been in the granting of powers to the Government. But what is clear is that these powers, which go to one Minister in this case, are much more extensive than those in the Canterbury situation. As an example, the decisions of a Minister made under Part 4 are not regulations. There is no requirement to gazette them. They cannot be examined under the order—

💬 Charles Chauvel: The Regulations Review Committee.

They cannot go to the Regulations Review Committee, because they are not regulations. A decision could be made to set aside a whole body of case law—years and years and years of case law. An authority that is being specially set up to consider that particular question could hear evidence and hear the experts and make the decision to say no, but the Minister could still say yes. I will get to some examples soon. I want to make it clear that I am not happy about any power being given to a Minister to override the decision of an authority headed by a judge. My view is that Parliament should have those rights but individual Ministers should not.

I have offered a compromise to the Minister. The compromise is that the Minister can be a brake on the decisions. If a positive decision is made by the authority that the Minister, on the advice of other Ministers, decides is wrong, he or she should have the ability to say: “No, we won’t proceed with that.” That is the compromise. I am uncomfortable with a compromise, but that is the compromise I have put on the Table. The thing I think makes New Zealand look like Nigeria is that a Minister can grant his mates approvals after a judge in a properly formed authority has said no.

💬 John Hayes: That’s not true.

That member sat on the Government Administration Committee, and it is absolutely true. There can be a hearing, there can be a recommendation on the part of the authority to decline an application, but a Minister can override that and can approve that application—for one of his friends, for consideration; we will never know. That sort of approach will make New Zealand look like Nigeria. Part 4 is the most important part of the bill and one on which there will be the most discussion. I will be interested in the contribution from John Hayes, in particular, who denies that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has the right to overrule a tribunal.

💬 John Hayes: You’re right; I do.

He does. He denies the right. Well, I say to Mr Hayes that it is in the bill, and he sat on the select committee. He was there for the hearings and he was there for the deliberations. Frankly, if it is the understanding of Government members that the Minister does not have that power, then they will have no problem voting for my amendment. If it is their understanding that such a power does not sit in the hands of the Minister, then the appropriate thing for them to do is to vote for my amendment, or, in fact, to question whether Part 4 is needed at all.

I would like to challenge members opposite to give us just two examples of where they think it is appropriate for a Minister to override a decision of the authority—case-like examples. I say to the former deputy leader of ACT that I am shocked at the position that ACT is taking on this legislation. I am surprised that the party that stands up for property rights is allowing the property rights of neighbours to be overruled like this. If a proper application on which evidence has been given is rejected, the Minister can say that, yes, that old villa, that historic place, or that building that is subject to a protection order can be bowled over. The Minister can make that decision, under this legislation, and neighbours’ property rights are just wiped. They do not have any, because of this approach.

I thank the Māori Party for the fact that it has looked carefully at this issue and decided to support the amendment, and quite rightly so. Under this legislation the Minister would have the right to bowl over a marae, to dig up a wāhi tapu, and to put bulldozers through a burial ground. All of which would be stopped by ordinary law, but the Minister has the right to do that under this legislation, because he is not subject to any of the normal laws or any of the normal protections that pertain to this area.

I know that Government members will vigorously defend the Minister, and I want them to give us an example or two. I am not breaching the confidentiality of the select committee in talking about its meeting this morning, because it was held in public. One of our members asked Mr Maarten Wevers whether security issues could be a reason, whether security issues could be dealt with using Mr McCully’s powers under this legislation, and she was told no. There is a separate process, a proper process involving a judge whose decisions cannot be overturned by a politician, and security issues will be dealt with in that way. So I want to know why a house that cannot be demolished under current legislation, that cannot be demolished under the Resource Management Act, that cannot be demolished under the non-urgent provisions, and that cannot be demolished under the urgent provisions under a decision from the authority, can be demolished if the Minister claims the right to have that property demolished, against all of the evidence. There can be no good reason for that, and I say to members opposite that they should feel ashamed as they grant this power.

Trevor Mallard has just shown the weakness of his argument in arguing that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has unbridled powers. He has done that by the very example that he brought up, saying that the Minister would demolish a historic building. Well, leaving aside the fact that very few historic buildings are left in Auckland anyway after 9 years of the previous Labour Government, I ask members just to think about the circumstances in which a Minister wanting the best for a Rugby World Cup would demolish a historic building. Is that an argument that carries any weight, at all? Is that an argument that in the wildest realm of possibility holds any kind of weight? We just need to go through the scenario.

Here is my scenario for Trevor Mallard: we are 2 days out from the Rugby World Cup, there is a match on, and somebody walks into the boardroom and says that such and such a road’s traffic has not been stopped—we need some real example, so we will use road closures. Fifty thousand people are coming to watch the game, but a road has not been closed to traffic. What will be done about it, because there might be the need for some bollards? Under the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, as proposed, a decision is made to get by without the road closure. But it is not the panel of judges and commissioners who have to wear the consequences of that decision. The people who have to wear the consequences of that decision are the members of the Government. We have to ask ourselves whether we want appointed people or elected people making those big, critical decisions—and that, I suggest to the member opposite, is absolutely the nub of the argument here.

I also argue that there is no unbridled, unfettered power in this bill, as described by Trevor Mallard. In fact, if Trevor Mallard had decided to take a calm look at clause 4, he would have seen that rather than having unbridled powers to demolish historic buildings, in fact a number of protections are described in Part 4 for the urgent powers to be given to the Minister.

It is also worth noting, just while I am at it, that the Government Administration Committee did not recommend any significant changes to those powers, nor did the Labour members on the committee choose to put in a minority report. That is very telling; that says to us that the committee considering this bill was happy with its provisions, and it was just Trevor Mallard—just the former Minister for the Rugby World Cup—who was unhappy with this provision. Even then, that former Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Trevor Mallard, had the opportunity to put in a minority report—such a report was discussed within the select committee—but did he? He did not. Trevor Mallard was asked whether he wanted to put in a minority report on the issue that concerned him so much. At the select committee I asked the member whether he wanted to do that. The answer was “No. I do not wish to put in a minority report.” It was up to him to put it in; he declined to do so. This issue in relation to Part 4 is merely Labour members saying: “We can’t have what we want. Therefore, New Zealand can’t have it, either.” If the Labour members on the Government Administration Committee really valued democracy, they would have taken the opportunity given to them to put in a minority report and give their view, but they decided not to do that. I think that is particularly telling.

In reference to Part 4, I think the only thing the people of New Zealand care about tonight is that the Government supports the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. That is what people see. They see that the Government is fully behind this bill. The people of New Zealand understand that this Government fully supports the Rugby World Cup, not just for the big games but also for the tournament and the opportunities that will be there for all of us throughout New Zealand.

But what about Labour? It is filibustering on this bill because it does not want the Rugby World Cup to be a success. That is very telling. In speech after speech, Labour members have been pulling holes in this bill, which, at the select committee, they were in full agreement with. I wish the members of the select committee, not just the ring-ins, would stand up and give a view on the bill, because I have to say that throughout the course of the select committee consideration there was broad agreement on it. But once the former Minister for the Rugby World Cup, Trevor Mallard, got hold of this bill, everything went downhill. The Labour select committee members have been taken down a path of filibustering on the bill.

The other thing that the people of New Zealand are thankful for tonight is that Prime Minister John Key has saved the film industry for New Zealand. That is a great success for New Zealand. So there are two things that this Government is achieving for New Zealand: the Rugby World Cup and the New Zealand film industry. This Government is focused on success for New Zealand. The Hobbit is one part of that—no thanks to the unions, no thanks to Helen Kelly, and no thanks to the Labour Party—and the other one is the Rugby World Cup, which, thanks to this Government and the hard work of the Government members on the Government Administration Committee, will be a raging success despite the poor efforts of Trevor Mallard.

Tonight we were subjected to Nikki Kaye breathlessly announcing that the Prime Minister had saved The Hobbit for New Zealand. She was preening and strutting around and telling us that the National Government has` single-handedly rescued the New Zealand film industry. It is very appropriate that that is part of the debate this evening, because underlying the whole debate about the Rugby World Cup, and in fact the public debate about the future of The Hobbit, is the question of Brand New Zealand. This Government, in the way it has handled the dispute about The Hobbit, and in the way it is ramming through Part 4, is sending a very powerful message. The message is that this Government will bend over, as my colleague so eloquently put it, and do anything that is required in order to satisfy itself that it will get the deal.

Tonight we saw the Prime Minister, John Key, basically announce that he will race any other country to the bottom. He is sending the message to international investors that he will do whatever they want him to do. He has written a cheque to Warner Bros for the amount the Government cut out of the budget for adult and community education. What will happen when New Line Cinema comes knocking? What will happen when Disney comes knocking? What will happen when any other investor comes knocking and says: “We want a cash handout. How much will you give?”. Not only is the Prime Minister willing to do that and to sell our national self-respect down the river but also he is willing to sell our sovereign lawmaking to any foreign investor who comes knocking.

We have had a very broad-ranging debate on this issue. Successive speakers have discussed the saving of The Hobbit, and it is relevant to the Rugby World Cup because in Part 4 we see a willingness to compromise the democratic process and to hand over, in this case to the Hon Murray McCully, unfettered urgency powers. It shows a disregard for our constitutional and democratic processes.

💬 Jacqui Dean: The member should read the bill.

That member should read the bill, because the only thing that was more galling than listening to Nikki Kaye explain how the Prime Minister saved The Hobbit was hearing Jacqui Dean’s legal argument. She is the Rumpole of the National Party; the Perry Mason of the Government benches.

I will never forget Jacqui Dean’s explanation of why these powers should be handed over to the Hon Murray McCully. Let me rehearse the argument for members in case anybody has forgotten Jacqui Dean’s explanation of why those powers should be handed over to Murray McCully. The argument goes like this: it is ultimately the elected politicians and the Ministers of the day who will be accountable to the public of New Zealand for whether the Rugby World Cup is the success that it could be. That is her argument. It is the elected members of Parliament and the Ministers who will be accountable to the public.

If that is the argument, if that is what it comes down to, if that is Jacqui Dean’s justification, then we might as well shut down the judiciary and the legislature. Why do we not just hand over the entire governance of our country to the Ministers of this Government? Frankly, under Jacqui Dean’s reasoning, it is only Murray McCully and his Cabinet colleagues who are accountable to the New Zealand public, so we might as well just give them a free hand. Every other piece of democratic process, every other piece of our constitutional history, is an impediment to this Government’s aspirations so we might as well just get rid of it. That is pretty much what Jacqui Dean had to say.

Let us talk about Part 4. As my colleague Trevor Mallard has laid out very eloquently, Part 4 gives the Minister for the Rugby World Cup extraordinary powers to override the recommendation of the Rugby World Cup Authority, which is constituted by this bill. It is the contention of members on this side of the Chamber that that is unnecessary and damaging to our democratic process. It essentially makes the Minister unaccountable in the exercise of those executive powers.

The great irony in this whole situation is that Murray McCully is the one member in this Parliament who has demonstrated by his actions why a Minister should not be given unfettered powers to behave in an unaccountable way. We have only to go back as far as 1999, when Murray McCully set up two unaccountable groups of officials in his tourism portfolio because he did not like the advice he was getting from the Tourism Board. Then, after meddling and interfering with the Tourism Board, he sacked three members of the board and paid out $900,000 of taxpayers’ money to keep them quiet. That was all validated in the report of the Auditor-General, and, ultimately, Murray McCully was forced to resign his portfolio because of those shenanigans.

If anyone has demonstrated that we should not give Ministers the kind of unfettered powers that this bill gives them, it is Murray McCully. Yet the members on the Government side seem perfectly willing to hand over those kinds of powers, even though, as we have said for the last few hours of this debate, this bill sets out a comprehensive set of processes and a properly constituted authority—it will be headed by a judge, or a lawyer of 7 years’ standing, with a deputy chair who is a lawyer of 7 years’ standing—with all the powers in the world to recruit and commission. It has an administrative secretariat—it is all there.

The system is set up, yet we have not heard from Government members any justification, any scenario, as to why they cannot trust the Rugby World Cup Authority to do the job that this bill asks it to do. Government members insist on handing over executive powers so that this Minister can act in an unaccountable way. It is wrong, it is inappropriate, and the House should not allow it.

Throughout the debate this evening members on the Government benches have been throwing around a few labels, and I think that Part 4 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill gives us an opportunity to perhaps introduce a few labels for this Government. “Undemocratic” is a label that sits very comfortably on this Government. It is thoroughly undemocratic. “Dividers” is another label that sits very comfortably on this Government. “Arrogant” is a third label that I think sits very comfortably, and it is all here in Part 4.

The Government is undemocratic because it sets up perfectly good processes in law in other parts of this bill—perfectly good processes—for dealing with applications. It sets up an authority that can hear representations and can hear all sides of the story. It has more than one member, so its members can offer different views and advice to one another. The Government sets up that democratic, robust system and authority, and then, in Part 4, it completely undermines the whole thing and invests all the authority in one person—a Minister. It will probably be either the Minister for the Rugby World Cup or the Minister for Economic Development, and the current Minister for Economic Development is well versed in undemocratic processes.

Jacqui Dean tried to say it was more democratic to vest all this authority in one elected representative, as opposed to a group of appointed officials. Well, in that case, I ask why we do not just do away with the judiciary. Why do we not just do away with courts, judges, the judicial process, natural justice, and the rule of law? We could get rid of all of those things and rely on vesting all power in a single, albeit elected, person. I think people call that a dictatorship. That, obviously, is where the Government would like us to go, and if we have more examples of what we have here in Part 4, then that sort of undemocratic process is where we will end up.

The second label that sits comfortably on this Government is “dividers”. Government members have been incredibly divisive throughout this debate tonight. They have sought to label the Opposition and, bizarrely, they have not been prepared to even countenance the Hon Trevor Mallard’s one amendment to Part 4. There are numerous clauses in Part 4; there are a huge number of clauses in here. The Hon Trevor Mallard wants to make one addition to clause 51 that puts a small handbrake on the Minister’s power. It is an opportunity for there to be consensus; it is an offer of a compromise position.

I think that amendment is a very mature response from the Opposition benches, yet Government members just absolutely refuse to engage in an intellectual debate. They refuse to tell us why they are opposed to the amendment offered up by the Hon Trevor Mallard. They refuse to tell us why they have so much confidence in Part 4 as it is written at the moment, without making that amendment. They simply sit there and hurl abuse at the Opposition for trying to offer an option that we could come to a compromise on and build a consensus on. We could move on, as Government members want us to do. We could move on with this legislation right now—right now—if Government members would just get down off their high horses, drop their arrogance for a second, and countenance the idea that the Opposition can put up a good idea and make an offering to this bill that is useful.

It is just one clause. Jacqui Dean asked why there was no minority report. Well, putting to one side the fact that Sandra Goudie, the member sitting next to Jacqui Dean, does not actually take kindly to minority reports—she likes to trample on democracy and votes them down—there probably was not even a point in putting forward a minority report on Part 4. Clause 51 is one singular clause. I ask what the point is of having an entire minority report for one amendment to one clause, which can simply and efficiently be dealt with in the amendment that we have put forward this evening. That would be the mature response from this Government, but instead we have had childish insults hurled across the Chamber tonight in an effort to try to paint Opposition members, who are simply saying this part vests too much power in one individual.

It is pure arrogance that the Government is not prepared to look at the amendment that Mr Mallard has offered up. If it is not adopted, we may as well cut almost every other provision in this bill. We could probably get rid of Part 3 altogether, most of Part 2 could go, and, frankly, Part 5 could just about be cut out altogether if we leave Part 1 as it is—sorry, Part 4; Mr Mallard is looking at me oddly—because that basically overrides everything else that is in the bill. [Interruption] Yes, I was getting there. The good, solid processes that are already in the bill are thoroughly and completely undermined by Part 4, and it could be so, so easily fixed. It could be easily fixed. We could finish this debate tonight if the Government could get down off its high horse for a second and deal with that issue.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: They’ve dug in.

Steve Chadwick is absolutely right. Government members have decided to dig in and take the difficult option, rather than seeing sense and just working with the Opposition for once. Part 4 is in dire need of amendment, and the option is still available for the Government to see sense and join with the Opposition in reaching a consensus position.

Of course, I suppose it is not really a particularly great surprise that Government members have taken the undemocratic approach. We have seen it down in Canterbury with regard to Environment Canterbury. There is also a question mark over the powers that have been vested in the Government following the earthquake. That was an emergency situation—

💬 Aaron Gilmore: You guys voted for that.

—and we voted in favour of the legislation because it was an emergency situation, but there are certainly some question marks around it. But again, what actually happened with regard to the Canterbury legislation was that the Government engaged with us to a certain extent, and we were able to reach a position where there was some handbrake on that unbridled power.

Why does it not do the same thing this evening? I ask that of the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Carter. We have not had a single call taken by any of the Ministers who have occupied the chair this evening. I ask what the reason is for not engaging with the Opposition on this amendment. That question lies before the Minister in the chair and before any member on the Government benches who wants to take up that challenge. Government members have not been able to articulate in any meaningful way whatsoever this evening why they are so opposed to a mature and sensible amendment that would simply modify the legislation in a way that would make New Zealanders comfortable with it and make the Opposition comfortable with it, so that we could actually make some progress on this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have spoken on the other parts of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, but Part 4 is the crux of why we are debating this bill. We largely support the other parts of the bill, as my colleagues have made very clear. There are some technicalities, but it is Part 4 that we find abhorrent. The reason for that is very simple: the Minister has unbridled power to basically run roughshod over all of the procedures that would otherwise be in place.

We went through Part 2, which sets up the Rugby World Cup Authority. This authority comprises a senior judge of some 7 years’ standing; other members of the authority are also senior. It has the ability to hear in a very, very short time concerns and applications that may arise. We support that. We are setting up a special authority to enable those applications to be heard. Nevertheless, we believe it is important for the Rugby World Cup to have that facility, just in case it is needed. Part 3 sets up all the procedures. The procedures are set out in some detail, as well as the difficulties that could arise, to make sure that the authority is able to hear the submissions—again, so that the proper procedures and the proper democratic process can be followed.

We come to Part 4 and we are more or less throwing Parts 2 and 3 out the window. We are giving the Minister pretty much unbridled power to do whatever he or she likes. We have to ask ourselves why we need Parts 2 and 3. Why do we not just have Part 4? Part 4 could have done what was essentially already there, without the need to go through this debate. This debate is about Part 4 and the ability of the Minister to exercise that power.

We have an alternative. Mr Mallard has put up an amendment. It is a reasonable suggestion and would remove that power. We would be able to go back to an authority that has our full confidence and has full standing, and to a set of procedures that are tight and robust, even given the short time span in which the authority would be able to hear a case. I do not quite understand why we need to give a Minister that sort of power.

As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway said, this is not the first time. We have had this situation with Environment Canterbury. We had it with the earthquake, which we supported. In some ways we uncomfortably supported it, but we nevertheless supported it. But this is part of a long list of things that we are finding progressively undemocratic, such as the number of Official Information Act requests that we have submitted that take weeks to be answered, and the number of times we have had to appeal to the Ombudsman to ensure that those requests are responded to. We are still waiting weeks for those. This is perhaps a step too far.

💬 John Hayes: Welcome to Opposition.

John Hayes may try to interject, but it is true. During the lunch break today I was talking to a number of journalists who are having the same problem as we are. We want to get information. It is our right as an Opposition to be able to do that. It is our right as an Opposition to delay this bill. We believe that Part 4 is essentially undemocratic, and it is not in the interests of New Zealand.

Just to rub salt into the wound, Labour is the party that brought the Rugby World Cup to New Zealand. This is the party that had the vision to get out there and argue to get the Rugby World Cup brought to New Zealand. Then we hear a whole bunch of members on the other side of the Chamber saying that somehow we are unpatriotic because we do not support Murray McCully having unfettered power through this bill.

I say with a bit of risk that I do not entirely agree with all of the comments the preceding speaker, David Shearer, made, notwithstanding the fact that he is on my side of the Chamber. It is my view that Part 4 of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill is necessary. There is no doubt in my mind that there has to be an approach for granting urgent approvals. I have given the example of a building. There might well be an occasion when it is appropriate to have a building bowled quickly. There is also the transport issue. As a result of a foul-up at the opening of the Rugby World Cup, the decision might be made to implement some road closures later on for the semi-finals and the finals, and an urgent process would be necessary. I do not think there is a debate about the need for having an urgent process; it is just about the way that it is shaped.

In particular, we can look at the differences in approach between clauses 52 and 53. Clause 52 is “Effect of declaration made by Order in Council”, and clause 53 is “Effect of urgent approval granted by Minister”. They are quite different clauses. I see no problem. I cannot remember whether you, Mr Chairperson Barker, were involved while you were a Minister, but on occasion I was part of very hurriedly put together Executive Council meetings to pass Orders in Council; statutory management is the obvious example. There is an ability for a Government, if necessary, to get three Ministers together in order to form an Executive Council to pass Orders in Council. But I think in undertaking that process we ensure a sense of collective responsibility and make sure there is a check and a balance on a particular individual Minister, rather than letting them run without the checks that are in this bill.

I point out that some useful changes have been made in this bill, especially around the terms and conditions, including the payment of a bond. Unlike the deposits for the Part 3 declarations, the bonds for the Part 4 declarations are such that there can be a deposit not only around the cost of the hearings, but also to secure the costs of any remediation of work that is done, and to make sure that the conditions of the urgent approval are met. That is relatively unusual in New Zealand law; it occasionally happens with oil companies. Because this is a very unusual power I think the Government Administration Committee did a good thing in making sure there was a bonding arrangement and therefore some of the rorts could not occur.

The Rugby World Cup Authority in making its recommendations and the Minister in granting an application—as happens—have to look to a number of factors. One factor is the need to secure public safety, as well as to avoid, control, or mitigate any adverse impacts of a permitted Rugby World Cup activity on the environment. Those additions were made by the select committee. The select committee saw that it was exceptionally important in these urgent cases, which will be irreversible. This is the key part of the legislation. With everything else in the legislation, there is time for appeal, there is time for a reversal, and there is, at least on points of law, an ability to get to a court. But clause 51(4) makes it clear that a decision of the Minister under this section is final. Using the example that we have used on a number of occasions, a decision could well be assigned by a Minister at 11:59, and at 12 o’clock the bulldozers start to move. There is no ability to intervene or to use court processes in order to review or hold the decision. That provision, therefore, is very, very serious.

I think we need to focus as well—and I would be interested in the opinions of Government members, and possibly the Attorney-General’s—on clause 53(2). That clause is designed to make clear that any right that is based on one of these approvals does not give any right based on the use of the land after the expiry of the approval. It is all very well and good to say that a right does not give someone any rights afterwards, but if one has demolished a building in order to make a fan space, then there obviously cannot be, if it is a historic building, a requirement to replace the building in the form that it was. So a lot of these decisions end up being very, very final.

I also say that I think the Minister got it right in the introduction of this legislation after discussions with the Labour Opposition, in having requirement under clause 51(1)(a) and especially (b) to consult relevant Ministers. When a Minister gets a declaration from the authority there is then a requirement on the Minister to go to their colleague the Minister for Economic Development, in this case Mr Brownlee, and then to go to any relevant Minister of the Crown. I think that would generally be the Minister for the Environment or the Minister of Conservation. They are the two who I think are most likely, because they are the Ministers who hold the powers. There might be occasions where the Minister for Biosecurity might become involved; I would again be interested in the view of the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Carter, as to whether the Minister of Agriculture might be consulted if there is a biosecurity issue. In other cases there might be a commerce question or a competition question. I would be interested in the views of Mr Power on whether he envisages becoming involved in this consultation.

There is the question of whether in Subpart 2, “Miscellaneous Provisions”, clause 52 is misplaced. I wonder whether this clause should be earlier in the legislation. The implication is that it relates to Part 4 when, in fact, it relates to Part 3. There could well be confusion with the Act later on. I would be interested in opinion on whether it would be better drafted in an order where the regulation explanation clause—it is not the regulation-making one; that is in clause 48, which is earlier in the bill—sits in the appropriate place.

This is the second of my sets of calls. I finish this call on the same basis as I did my first, and that is with a challenge to Government members to give us a specific example of where they think a Minister of the Crown should have the right on his or her own accord, against the view of a judge and a panel—it is not just a judge; it is also an expert panel—to override those decisions.

I will pick up on the whole question that Trevor Mallard spoke about in relation to the checks and balances on Ministers. Those checks and balances are a really important part of the conventions of accountable government. The conduct of the Minister responsible for this bill, the Hon Murray McCully, and the Minister who in all likelihood will be the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, is an affront to the conventions of accountable government. I will give members a couple of examples that I think are relevant to this whole debate about the granting of urgency powers. This Minister, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has in recent times appointed a former National MP, Mark Blumsky, to a position. The Minister intervened to award a contract worth $78,000, and he awarded it to a former National MP, Mark Blumsky.

💬 Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am looking for relevance to this part and I fail to find it. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, we are not going to have that, thank you. I say to the member that although members have said this is a wide-ranging debate, it is not. People have strayed, and I guess it is going backwards and forwards. However, I suggest to the member that he needs to concentrate on Part 4. There may be other examples that he can tie in by way of example, but they cannot be the main thrust of the member’s speech. We are on Part 4, and I invite the member to continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, and as you have said, we are discussing Part 4. We are discussing, in particular, the granting of what we regard as excessive powers under the urgency provisions of this bill that allow the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to make decisions that override the recommendations of the officials who are empowered, under this bill, as the Rugby World Cup Authority. That calls into question the commitment of this Government to the normal conventions of accountable government.

My point right now is that this Minister has demonstrated, by his own ministerial record, the very reasons why those conventions of accountable government must be respected. It is very easy to imagine situations where this Minister under this legislation could ignore the advice of officials and override them in the way that he has consistently, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, ignored the advice of foreign affairs officials. He has a track record of making decisions on a whim, without any kind of policy basis. He has cut major multi-year funding contracts without any kind of evaluation or analysis being undertaken about the effectiveness of those projects. He has a cavalier approach, and has systematically ignored and disregarded the advice of officials. That is relevant; that is utterly relevant to the matter that we are debating in this bill, because it formalises the right of this Minister to make decisions in complete disregard of the advice that he receives from the officials and the Rugby World Cup Authority. We have seen that consistently in his conduct as Minister of Foreign Affairs. It has not only been about disregarding the advice of officials in the management of the aid programme, but he has a reputation for cronyism.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have listened carefully to this member’s contribution; it could only be described as emotionally incontinent. Why does he not concentrate on Part 4, instead of indulging in personal abuse? [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, I do not need that. [Interruption] I am on my feet; there will be no interchange. The point is I was listening to the debate, and I would say that the member, in my view, is sailing close to the wind. But the point of this legislation is that it does concentrate powers into the hands of certain people. It is not, in my view, outside the realm of the debate to say there might be some concerns about how these people exercise those powers. The point is that the member must concentrate on the bill and make points by way of example. I invite the member to continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Part 4 puts certain powers in the hands of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, although there are some caveats. He is required to do certain things. He is required to secure public safety and to avoid, control, or mitigate any adverse impacts of the event on the environment. But those caveats are minor and trifling, compared with the powers that are being put into the hands of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. It is a concern to me and to members on this side of the Chamber that the very person who will be exercising those powers under this legislation has a track record and history of disregard for the basic conventions of accountable government. We saw that back in the 1990s with regard to the Tourism Board, and we see it now with the management of the foreign aid programme.

I move, That the question be now put.